Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:We were talking about Romans chapter 9

I offer it to you in the new post.

What would you think if I replied to you, "Romans 9 says the opposite, and therefore, Is. 41:8-9 does not mean that"? Preposterous? Can I agree? It is irrelevant what Is. 41 says. We don't determine what Rom.9 from the context of Is.41! Don'd you reckon we should try and establish the contextual meaning of Romans 9 from .... ROMANS 9?

You have a faulty view of Scripture. We must take the Bible as a whole. If you cannot agree with that, then this argument will not get anywhere. This is evident to your blantant disregard to other Scriptures that were given you at the very beginning.

The rest of your statements generally hang on your inability to accept other passages of Scripture to aid in the interpretation (see your response about the Jeremiah allusion). I will ignore the laughable attempt at explaining logic in your previous post - mainly, because I don't have the time nor the desire to explain to you various lessons in argumentation and debate. If you wish to do more reading on that, I would commend you for that.

I would encourage you to read through the entire Bible, taking the Romans 9 tinted glasses off and leaving the a priori assumptions at the door, then returning to read Romans 9 again. Once you get a grasp on how God's election worked in the Old Testament, you will be able to understand where I am coming from in regards to the argument that Paul makes.

Before you write about how God just hasn't opened my eyes yet or that my heart is hardened, I would suggest that you examine yourself first to see if your heart is hard as well. My heart was hardened for many, many years as a Calvinist, and I refused to see "the other side." My will began to melt as I continued to read the Bible as a whole, seeing that God is both sovereign and man has the will to choose or reject him. Romans 9-11 are some of the most majestic chapters in the Bible, as Paul takes great pains to explain why Gentile people (of which I am one) is now allowed to partake in the blessings of the gospel. The OT continually points to that.

I would also encourage you to "flow" the argument, if you know what that means. That will help you to understand how our argument got off track. You are bound to see several "holes" on your paper - those are the points that you need to make to strengthen your argument.

Believe it or not, but I am always open to good arguments, and will be happy to admit when I am wrong. However, your argument was poorly constructed, and you put all your eggs in a very small basket. You held on to it ferociously, in spite of the evidence against it. In fact, all other evidence you interpreted wearing the Romans 9 glasses, instead of stepping back and considering how they could be taken together.

I would, in conclusion, ask that we take this up in the Romans 9 thread for this reason. Our argument is from a much larger perspective than the few verses you posted. It hinges on the result of Paul's entire argument. We're not discussing nit-picking stuff, but large theoretical frameworks that we use to create our hermeneutical framework.

SEC

 

[grateful4grace]

Dear Bob,

Again Bob.... I was defining the word WORLD mainly, and pointing out that the letter was written to Jewish Christians. As salvation is uniform, however, what is true of them is true of ANY elect person..... for those saved out of the "whole world".

But what I would like to point out is that it is YOU that are inserting the word "ONLY" into the text, or into my definition, but which is in neither place in its own right, and radically changes the meaning, so as to afford you your conclusions which would not otherwise seem to appear.
Here is what I am talking about... here is your interpretation of my angle on the verse:
"1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (elect JEWS AND GENTILE ONLY) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;"
Which afforded you this conclusion:
"Already the text is made problematic by restricting the promise/scope to "elect Jews only" - elect JEWS ONLY have an ADVOCATE when ANYONE sins.""

Can you see that your entire objection is based upon a meaning which you alone inserted into the text? By using the word "ONLY"?

Your second attempt didn't correct this:
"1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (among you elect JEWS reading this letter) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;"

Again, however, you are inserting words which afford you a ridiculous meaning... that ONLY the Jews have an atonement made for them. But it is of your own making. Besides... the text says that it was for peoples of the WHOLE world, and not only of the Jews.
Allow me to offer an example of the way I understand it, after your method of inserting my meaning into the text, according to the interpretation I ACTUALLY GAVE IT.

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (Jewish believers in Parthia) so that you (Jewish believers at Parthia) may not sin. And if anyone (among your number there) sins, we (Jewish believers at Parthia) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; And he is the propitiation of our sins, (Jewish believers in Parthia) and not of ours only, (not for Jews only) but of the sins of the whole world". (For some from EVERY tribe and tongue)
The inclusive words "Whole world" here are not to be seen as including every SOUL, but in every PEOPLE, NOT just Jews, and being none the less for that sake satisfying the sense of inclusiveness in the words.
And again... the word world DOESN'T always mean "every man". And, as Tiger or Ken pointed out, you would have to change the meaning of the word propitiation if you were going to take it your way.

G4G

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Definition of Atonement.

Atonement: Satisfaction for sin by which pardon is obtained.

Atonement is not a retribution or payment for a debt. Repentance and Faith in the Lamb of God symbolized through all Old Testament and in the New Testament represented by Jesus Christ; had always been the requirements for salvation. In the Old Testament you see proselytes to whom the atonement was efficient. There has always been the opportunity for all those who want to come and drink of the waters freely. Those who are now in hell had their opportunity in their time, it doesn't demerit the sacrifice of Christ in any sense, Christ died for ALL, for the salvation of many (the believers) and the condemnation of other (the unbelievers).

"If sinners do not accept it (Atonement), in no view can the atonement be useless, as the great compassion of God, in providing an atonement and offering them mercy, will forever exalt His character, in the estimation of holy beings, greatly strengthen His government, and therefore benefit the whole universe." Charles Finney

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
Charles Finney

The subject of Charles Finney has already been brought up. Charles Finney was a heretic by any orthodox Christian standards - Calvinistic or otherwise.

Look at: www.gty.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 03, 2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Ken:

I don't agree in all what Finney believed, come on deal with the Atonement subject.

By the way Finney was Spurgeon's worst nightmare.

God used Finney to bring revival while most "Calvinistic" baptist churches were dying in the 19th century.

I stick to Finney in the Atonement doctrine. He defeated all calvinistics in his time on that, by far.

[ September 03, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]

 

[russell55]

God used Finney to bring revival while most "Calvinistic" baptist churches were dying in the 19th century.

Huh???? Have you really looked into this statement?

 

[BobRyan]

of Paul in Romans

...EVEN SO through ONE act of righteousness there resulted justification Of Life to ALL MEN (vs 18)"

You realize, that if you take this statement and make "all men" mean every person ..., then you have every person being justified--every one has eternal life.

Two problems there.

#1 - the idea that you can "make All Men" mean whatever suits your doctrinal preference "best". (Redefine terms in scripture as it suits your doctrinal preference).

#2. The Calvinist position in 1John 2:2 is that "The Whole World is Saved". Once "Whole World" is sufficiently redefined down to "The FEW of Matt 7 among the Gentiles - the elect Gentiles". They are only surprised "That the Bible does not actually come out and say - Thuse the WHole World is Saved in addition to the Jewish Whole World".

Notice that in Romans 5 "all men are Justified" is not what the text says. And there in is the mechanism for letting the ALL stay as it is with the "EVEN SO" connecting the ALL of those who are DEAD in Adam with the ALL of those who have JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE "resulted".

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 04, 2002, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> of Paul in Romans

...EVEN SO through ONE act of righteousness there resulted justification Of Life to ALL MEN (vs 18)"

You realize, that if you take this statement and make "all men" mean every person ..., then you have every person being justified--every one has eternal life.

Two problems there.

#1 - the idea that you can "make All Men" mean whatever suits your doctrinal preference "best". (Redefine terms in scripture as it suits your doctrinal preference).

#2. The Calvinist position in 1John 2:2 is that "The Whole World is Saved". Once "Whole World" is sufficiently redefined down to "The FEW of Matt 7 among the Gentiles - the elect Gentiles". They are only surprised "That the Bible does not actually come out and say - Thuse the WHole World is Saved in addition to the Jewish Whole World".

Notice that in Romans 5 "all men are Justified" is not what the text says. And there in is the mechanism for letting the ALL stay as it is with the "EVEN SO" connecting the ALL of those who are DEAD in Adam with the ALL of those who have JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE "resulted".
</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Bob

First, a universalist could use your above words against you and say that you are just giving the word "ALL" your own meaning according to your theological inclination. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". And the interpretation which you give this passage is almost certainly what Russel... (I think that's who you were responding to!)... would say of the text. He is no universalist, and neither are you. What I am saying is that you are agreeing with him in making that intrepretaiton... that the word "all" DOESN'T always have the absolutely inclusive meaning which Arminians are pleased to ascribe to it, and if it does, then both yours and Russels understanding of scripture is wrong, and the universalists correct.

G4G

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
Ken:

I don't agree in all what Finney believed, come on deal with the Atonement subject.

By the way Finney was Spurgeon's worst nightmare.

God used Finney to bring revival while most "Calvinistic" baptist churches were dying in the 19th century.

I stick to Finney in the Atonement doctrine. He defeated all calvinistics in his time on that, by far.

The article Ken linked to is certainly recomended reading. I would post pertinent parts of it here were it not copyrighted. Certainly the idea that Finney brought some sort of revival to his hearers is a point Finney himself even denied by the time the fruits were known. And the notion that "Calvinistic Baptists" were all but dead at that time of history is but to take the word of one of history's greatest ego-maniacs, Charles Finney, and to discredit all others. In my opinion, there was scarcely a time when they were more healthy. Finney taught that imputed righteousness was a fiction, and concerning Christ's righteousness said, "It is impossible that it should be imputed to us". And denying that Christ's righteousness was imputed to the sinner, he also denied that the sinners guilt was imputed to Christ, and thus his "atonement" was but a denial of atonement. As the article points out, Finney told the bold face lie that he supported the doctrines of the Westminister confession of faith in order to get ordained, and then spent the rest of his life blaspheming the truths which they contained. As far as I'm concerned Finney was a liar, a heretic, and a reprobate concerning the faith.

G4G

[ September 04, 2002, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]

 

[russell55]

Notice that in Romans 5 "all men are Justified" is not what the text says.

How does "justification resulted to all men" mean anything different than "all men were justified"?

What about 1 Corinthians 15 where is says "For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"? Does the second "all" there mean every person in the world?

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
While studying once in the early 90’s it came to me how simple the matter of limited atonement really was to defend, when proposed in the following question: If Jesus died for souls now in hell, by whose merits do we hope to obtain salvation?

There is only one answer: not HIS; only YOURS. There is simply no way out of it. I have asked this question to dozens of people since then, and have never gotten anything remotely close to a answer, and rarely is it long atempted.

Secondly, those of a universal atonement perspective often like to assert that scripture nowhere teaches a limited atonement, but everywhere speaks of a universal one. While the second claim is likely better deal with in a separate string, yet I would like to propose the following scripture as conclusive scriptural proof that the Lord Jesus died only for His elect.
“29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:29-32)

Notice verse 32…… It says one thing very clearly: Whoever it was that Jesus died for gets “all things”, and these “things” can ONLY refer to those “things” just mentioned… predestination, calling, justification, and glorification…. i.e., salvation. So if Jesus died for all men, then all are saved, because those for whom he died cannot fail of getting THESE things. Thus we are left with being either Sovereign Grace, or Universalists. That choice should be easy.
The bible is too clear in teaching that MOST men will be eternally damned, therefore, Jesus only died for His elect.

For those who oppose this doctrine, I propose to them that they answer these two questions.
1. Precisely WHAT is the benefit that these shall receive, if not that which is explicitly NAMED….. eternal salvation, from predestination all the way to glorification?
2. To WHOM is this benefit applied, if not to those explicitly NAMED in the text, those for whom Christ “gave Himself”?

I remind the respondent that a direct answer the two questions that are here asked is alone pertinent.

G4G

Above is the complete text of my original post which started this string. Like JW's and others the main approach as been but to turn to other places of scripture, rather than deal directly with the points made, as I had requested. No on, in my estimation even gave one earnest attempt at answering the first question at all. It was slightly mentioned by a couple of people, as I recall, but if I remember rightly it was pretty much just ignored. The second point about Rom.8:32 seemed to generate the most discussion. And as for that I made the following reply in the paragraph immediately below, and which I feel settles the whole matter once and for all, and against which nothing but evasive, prevaricating, and desperate replies were made.

"You put contingency between the death of Christ and the benefit to men... BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT OF THE TEXT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONTINGENCY!!!!!! How shall they NOT obtain salvation, is the claim of Paul about the power of the cross! "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, HOW SHALL HE NOT with him also freely give us all things?" What part of "HOW SHALL HE NOT" don't you understand? The text denies your EXACT claim, and puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the BENEFIT. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEXT!
And this was the point I was making in my first question, which NNE has attempted to answer yet, but which you here wholly admit."

It was asserted that no logical conclusion can be deduced from a rhetorical interogatory such as the text contains, but only if it uses the words "If" and "then", which is too absurd to even answer, and yet the BEST argument that was made against it.
It is my persuasion that these arguments stand completely unanswered, and witness thus to their merit so as to commend themselves to the consciences of the Lord's people.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
Like JW's and others the main approach as been but to turn to other places of scripture, rather than deal directly with the points made, as I had requested.

I would maintain that it is important to examine the entire body of Scripture to help understand a verse. It keeps it from being interpreted out of context.

If that couples me with JW's, so be it. I would hope that all Christians would be willing to do the same.

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
[qb]Ken:

Finney taught that imputed righteousness was a fiction, and concerning Christ's righteousness said, "It is impossible that it should be imputed to us". And denying that Christ's righteousness was imputed to the sinner, he also denied that the sinners guilt was imputed to Christ, and thus his "atonement" was but a denial of atonement.

G4G

For me Finney was as heretic as Spurgeon. So I have no problem in learing from both.

I've learned to eat the meat and spit the bones.

By the way I doubt you and the writer of the link that was sent have ever read Finney's writtings.

Now deal with my argument, not my quotes please.

[ September 04, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]

 

[BobRyan]

G4G
While studying once in the early 90’s it came to me how simple the matter of limited atonement really was to defend, when proposed in the following question: If Jesus died for souls now in hell, by whose merits do we hope to obtain salvation?

There is only one answer: not HIS; only YOURS. There is simply no way out of it. I have asked this question to dozens of people since then, and have never gotten anything remotely close to a answer, and rarely is it long atempted.

The question is perplexing since it "seems to presuppose" the Mormon doctrine of accepting salvation in another life rather than in this one.
The idea that souls in hell would be allowed to accpet salvation based on -- what? - their works in hell?

I guess one would have to "be" a Mormon to see it as a dilemma for the Arminian POV.

(It is interesting that even the book of Mormon condemns the teaching of waiting until after death to accept salvation.)

======================================
Or maybe the question is to address the idea that there were souls in hell at the time of the death of Christ - so in dying for the sins of the "whole World" He "should" have at least excluded them from the "Whole World". Is that it?

=========================
Or is the question "really" to address OT saints and when they receive salvation. The subject of "One Gospel" that is effective in the OT (taking Enoch and Elijah to heaven for example) as well as in the NT - then again, the question is more related to how one vs OT vs NT Gospels as being Two or One - rather than the question of Arminian vs Calvinism.

Pick one of the options above or add one that more accurately identifies the point you would like to have addressed.

In Christ,
Bob

[ September 04, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
Finney taught that imputed righteousness was a fiction, and concerning Christ's righteousness said, "It is impossible that it should be imputed to us". And denying that Christ's righteousness was imputed to the sinner, he also denied that the sinners guilt was imputed to Christ, and thus his "atonement" was but a denial of atonement.
G4G[/QB]

Atonement means SATISFACTION FOR SIN BY WHICH PARDON IS OBTAINED. It is NOT a payment for a debt not a retribution. Did Christ payed the exact amount of punishment that the amount of sinners he died for deserved? The atonement was an act of PUBLIC JUSTICE and Not RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.

Your understanding of what Atonement is the real problem. As the declaration of Spurgeon when he wrote in his defense of Calvinism, that he didn't believe Christ died for those that were already in hell, demostrates his ignorance of the meaning of the Atonement. Christ's sacrifice was symbolized through all sacrifices of the Old Testament since the days of Adam and Eve before there was any person in hell.

Those who offered the sacrifice of a Lamb were trusting in the future Atonement of Christ for their salvation, which was announced by God himself through the prophets.

Make a research for yourself.

 

[Eric B]

Like JW's and others the main approach as been but to turn to other places of scripture, rather than deal directly with the points made, as I had requested. No on, in my estimation even gave one earnest attempt at answering the first question at all. It was slightly mentioned by a couple of people, as I recall, but if I remember rightly it was pretty much just ignored. The second point about Rom.8:32 seemed to generate the most discussion. And as for that I made the following reply in the paragraph immediately below, and which I feel settles the whole matter once and for all, and against which nothing but evasive, prevaricating, and desperate replies were made.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If Jesus died for souls now in hell, by whose merits do we hope to obtain salvation?

There is only one answer: not HIS; only YOURS. There is simply no way out of it. I have asked this question to dozens of people since then, and have never gotten anything remotely close to a answer, and rarely is it long atempted.

</font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does not really discuss "those in Hell already" in relation to salvation (for the whole point is moot), so that is why it has been hard for people to deal directly with this proposition. I think many will agree that people before Christ were saved by faith, just like now, and Christ's death reached back and redeemed them (or their faith "looked forward"). Likewise those who did not have faith (Romans 9:31-33) were not justified, and not covered by the blood when it was shed. Keep in mind we are dealing with a God not bound by time who acts in time, so this is the reason "unanswerable questions" may arise. We must not overspeculate on the ramifications of these things and try to prove our doctrine on these questions, because that is itself a desperate evasive tactic when there should be enough clear scripture (divided rightly, according to context and the whole of scriptural revelation) to support one's position without having to resort to such tactics. (The Pharisees used this same method on Jesus).

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:29-32)

Notice verse 32…… It says one thing very clearly: Whoever it was that Jesus died for gets “all things”, and these “things” can ONLY refer to those “things” just mentioned… predestination, calling, justification, and glorification…. i.e., salvation. So if Jesus died for all men, then all are saved, because those for whom he died cannot fail of getting THESE things. Thus we are left with being either Sovereign Grace, or Universalists. That choice should be easy.

Simple. If Christ did die for all men, then he also died for "us all" (believers) as well. The whole group (of all humanity) includes the subset (of believers). So I see no problem in saying that those who get "all things" are "us all", meaning believers only.

[ September 04, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

TheRadicalOne,

So you don't like Finney . . . Your mentors have taught you this because they know that Finney was far closer to the truth than your Five Pointer, Mr. Camping who declares to you Calvinists and the rest of us that 'all Christians should leave their churches.' Mr. Camping's "Allegorical Method" of interpretation has finally gotten him a seat among the apostates.

Many Calvinists dislike Evangelist Finney because he was clearly more Arminian in his views than they can deal with from their vantage point.

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
So you don't like Finney

Ray, I like Finney.

You simply didn't follow what I've written.

 

[Ray Berrian]

TheRadicalOne,

Sorry my mistake; the first one this year. My wife wouldn't agree with this.

 

[grateful4grace]

Radical one:
"I've learned to eat the meat and spit the bones."

You've learned to wolf the carrion and spit out the wheat, from my perspective.

Radical one:
"By the way I doubt you and the writer of the link that was sent have ever read Finney's writtings."

I cut my theological teeth on Finney, and was TOTALLY deceived by him. I read him extensively for years. I've read his systematic theology completely, and, unlike most people, obtained the UNEDITED edition which contained MUCH more of his heresy that the one which Bethany heavily edited. I've read his entire Revival Lectures, and his entire Autobiography, and large amounts of his sermons. I don't reckon you would qualify this as not having read his writtings. In fact, it is unlikely that you have read so much of it. When I talk about Finney I unfortuneatly understand what I am talking about. He is an enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and if anyone esteems him to be somewhere other than burning in HELL at this moment, and I reckon that they are at BEST GROSSLY perverted and deceived as to the gospel, and at worst headed for the same damnation as he.

Radical one:
Now deal with my argument, not my quotes please.

I suggest you start a string on Finney's Rationalistic Atonement, which is what your arguments respected. I don't think you will find much interest in believers in Jesus Christ in debating the idea of a rationalistic atonement such as you and Mr. Finney advocate.
"He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

G4G

[ September 08, 2002, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]